The
domain
of
suggestionality:
Hindsight
bias
and
other
experimental
designs
Rüdiger
F.
Pohl
Psychology
III,
University
of
Mannheim
partially
based
on
Pohl,
R.
F.
(2004).
(Ed.).
Cognitive
illusions:
A
handbook
on
biases
and
fallacies
in
thinking,
judgement,
and
memory.
Hove,
UK:
Psychology
Press.
Fribourg
2010
1
Outline
My
research
vita
Introduction
to
cognitive
illusions
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Hindsight
bias
and
other
illusions
Conclusions
Fribourg
2010
2
My
research
vita
Fribourg
2010
3
My
research
vita
•
•
•
First
5
years:
Psycholinguistics
–  memory
representations
of
…
•  verbs
of
possession
•  propositions/sentences
•  stories/story
grammars
All
the
time:
Cognitive
psychology
–  schema
theory
of
information
processing
–  memory
errors/cognitive
illusions
•  eyewitness‐misinformation
effect
•  hindsight
bias
–  traumatic
memories
–  autobiographical
memory
Last
5
years:
Decision
making
–  heuristics
Fribourg
2010
4
My
research
vita
•
Psycholinguistics:
Propositional
structure
and
phrase
structure
Fribourg
2010
5
My
research
vita
•
Psycholinguistics:
Story
grammar
Fribourg
2010
(Mandler
&
Johnson,
1977)
6
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Looking
into
the
„black
box“
Fribourg
2010
7
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Schema
theory
of
information
processing
Interpretation
Selektion
Abstraktion
Integration
Fribourg
2010
Rekonstruktion
Episodische
Gedächtnisspur
Vergessen
8
My
research
vita
•
Cognitive
psychology:
Autobiographical
memory
Erste Freundin
Essen
gehen
Beziehung mit X
Ehe mit Y
Tanzen
gehen
Telefonieren
Erstes Treffen in F
Telefonate
Essen
bei Luigi
Fribourg
2010
Urlaub
machen
Urlaub in
G
Tanzen im
Malibu
Streitigkeiten
Erster
Kuss
Eifersuchtsszene
Perzeptive Details
Perzeptive Details
(Pohl, 2007; cf. Conway, 1992)
9
My
research
vita
Fribourg
2010
10
My
research
vita
•
Decision
making
with
heuristics:
Adaptive
toolbox
metaphor
Fribourg
2010
11
Introduction
to
cognitive
illusions
Fribourg
2010
12
Cognitive
illusions
Fribourg
2010
(2004)
13
Collections
of
cognitive
illusions
•
–  Hell, Fiedler, & Gigerenzer (1993). Kognitive Täuschungen.
–  Pohl (2004). Cognitive illusions.
Thinking and judgment
–
–
–
–
–
•
Tversky & Kahneman (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases.
Kahneman, Slovic, & Tversky (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases.
Edwards & von Winterfeld (1986). On cognitive illusions and their implications.
Caverni, Fabre, & Gonzales (1990). Cognitive biases.
Gilovich, Griffin, & Kahneman (2002). Heuristics and biases: The psychology of
intuitive judgment.
Memory
–
–
–
–
–
–
Sully (1881), Hodgson & Davey (1886/1887)
Bartlett (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.
Schacter et al. (1995). Memory distortions.
Roediger (1996). Memory illusions.
Roediger & McDermott (2000). Memory distortions.
Schacter (2001). The seven sins of memory.
Fribourg
2010
14
An
attempt
to
define
cognitive
illusions
1.  Deviation
from
reality
•
Problem
of
choosing
the
“correct”
normative
model
•
•
Necessity
of
a
control
group
Mean
effect
summed
across
many
trials
•
•
Unconscious
production
Additional
meta‐cognitive
and
motivational
factors
possible
•
Moderating
effects
of
instruction,
material,
and
procedures
possible
•
•
Distinction
to
“normal”
errors
(like
forgetting
and
inferences)
General
information‐processing
theories
as
explanations
2.  Systematic
deviation
3.  Involuntary
appearance
4.  Impossibility
to
avoid
5.  Specificity
of
phenomenon
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2004)
15
Domains
of
cognitive
illusions
1. Thinking
=
application
of
a
rule
•
•
Examples:
Estimate
a
probability,
verify
a
logical
conclusion,
or
discover
a
hidden
rule
Problem:
Insufficient
knowledge;
intuitive
application
of
rule
2. Judgment
=
subjective
rating
of
a
specific
aspect
•
•
Examples:
Judgments
of
pleasantness,
frequency,
or
veracity
Problem:
Influences
of
the
given
situation;
uncertain
knowledge
3. Memory
=
recall
of
earlier
encoded
information
•
Fribourg
2010
Problem:
Reconstruction
of
partly
forgotten
material
(Pohl, 2004)
16
A
list
of
cognitive
illusions
•
•
Thinking
1.
Conjunction
fallacy
2.
+
3.
Bayesian
inferences
4.
Confirmation
bias
5.
Illusory
correlation
6.
Illusions
of
control
7.
Biases
in
deductive
reasoning
Judgement
8.
Availability
9.
Judgments
by
representativeness
10.
Anchoring
effect
11.
Validity
effect
Fribourg
2010
12.
Mere
exposure
effect
13.
Overconfidence 14.
Pollyanna
principle
•
Memory
15.
Moses
illusion
16.
Orientation
illusions
in
memory
17.
Associative
memory
illusions
18.
Effects
of
labeling
19.
Misinformation
effect
20.
Hindsight
bias
21.
Illusions
of
change
or
stability
(Pohl, 2004)
17
The
domain
of
illusionality
1.  Illusive
situations
(subjective
reality
≠
objective
reality)
–  perceiving
illusion
as
reality
–  perceiving
reality
as
illusion
(=
re‐interpreting
reality)
–  perceiving
reality
as
non‐reality
(=
selectively
focussing)
2.  Illusive
techniques
(procedures
to
yield
cognitive
illusions)
3.  Illusionality
(readiness
to
be
illusioned)
–  general
characteristics
•  restrictions
to
the
cognitive
system
•  ambiguous
information,
uncertainty
–  individual
differences
4.  Illusive
functions
–  pessimistic
vs.
optimistic
view
–  economy
of
cognitive
ressources
–  coping
(orientation,
support,
protection)
Fribourg
2010
(Gheorghiu, Molz, & Pohl, 2004)
18
The
debate
on
„Heuristics
and
biases“
(1999)
(1982)
(2002)
(SPUDM 20, 2005, Stockholm)
Fribourg
2010
19
The
debate
on
„Heuristics
and
biases“
Pessimistic
view
Fribourg
2010
Optimistic
view
(Jungermann, 1986)
20
The
debate
on
heuristics
Com
p
of ac utationa
l cap
tor
a
more
natural
Fribourg
2010
(Simon, 1953)
bilitie
s
more
artificial
21
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Fribourg
2010
22
The
domain
of
suggestionality
What makes a person
follow a suggestion?
Fribourg
2010
23
The
domain
of
suggestionality
1.  Suggestive
situations/phases
a)  perception
of
suggestive
cues
with
demand
characteristics
b)  acceptance/dominance
of
suggestive
cues
c)  effectiveness
of
suggestive
cues
(e.g.
cognitive
illusions)
2.  Suggestive
techniques
–  e.g.
plausibility,
repetition,
source
characteristics
3.  Suggestibility
–  general
characteristics
–  individual
differences
•  readiness
to
accept
suggestions
•  standardized
tests
available
4.  Suggestive
functions
Fribourg
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
24
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Suggestive
techniques
General and individual
suggestibility
Person B
accepts x
Person A
suggests x
Suggestive situation
Suggestive functions
Fribourg
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
25
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Fribourg
2010
26
Hindsight
bias
and
other
illusions
Fribourg
2010
27
Anchoring
and
framing
•
Typical
anchoring
study
–  Comparative
question:
Is
the
percentage
of
African
nations
in
the
UN
smaller
or
larger
than
10%
[65%]?
–  Exact‐estimate
question:
How
large
is
it
exactly?
Fribourg
2010
(Tversky & Kahneman, 1974)
28
Anchoring
and
framing
Fribourg
2010
29
Labelling
Fribourg
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
30
Labelling
Fribourg
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
31
Labelling
Fribourg
2010
(Carmichael et al., 1932)
32
Labelling
•
•
How
fast
were
the
cars
going
when
they
hit
each
other
[smashed
into
each
other]?
Did
you
see
broken
glass
on
the
ground?
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus & Palmer, 1974)
33
Labelling
•
•
Which
color
had
the
car
passing
a
[the]
barn?
(Later:)
Did
you
see
a
barn?
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus, 1975)
34
Misinformation
effect
•
Original
slide
(out
of
a
series)
•
Questioning
1:
Did another car pass the red car while it was
stopped at the intersection with the yield [stop] sign?
Questioning
2:
Which traffic sign did you see at the intersection?
•
or
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)
35
Misinformation
effect
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978)
36
Implanting
memories:
Lost
in
the
mall
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995)
37
Implanting
memories:
Lost
in
the
mall
•
Example:
Chris
(in
consecutive
interrogations)
–  That day I was so scared that I would never see my family again. I knew that I was in trouble.
–  I remember mom telling me never to do that again.
–  I remember the man asking me if I was lost. I remember that old man’s
flanell shirt.
–  I was with you guys for a second and I think I went over to look at the
toy store, the Kay-bee toy and uh, we got lost and I was looking around
and I thought, “Uh-oh. I’m in trouble now.“ You know. And then I … I
thought I was never going to see my family again. I was really scared you know. And then this old man, I think he was
wearing a blue flannel, came up to me … he was kind of old. He was
kind of bald on top … he had like a ring of gray hair … and he had
glasses.
Fribourg
2010
(Loftus, 1993; Loftus & Pickrell, 1995)
38
Implanting
memories:
Childhood
kidnapping
attempt
Fribourg
2010
Jean Piaget (1896-1981)
39
Implanting
memories:
Hot
air
balloon
ride
Fribourg
2010
(Wade et al., 2002)
40
Hindsight
bias
Example
Fribourg
2010
(taken from Ash, 2009)
41
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2007)
42
Hindsight
bias
Memory design
93
80
72
Estimate
Estimate
Fribourg
2010
Solution
Hindsight bias
Recalled estimate Experimental
Recalled estimate Control
43
Hindsight
bias
Hypothetical design
93
80
72
Estimate
Control
Fribourg
2010
Hindsight bias
Solution
Hypothetical estimate
Experimental
44
Proportion of recalled estimates (%)
Hindsight
bias
Estimate
20
Solution
15
10
Ctr.
Exp.
5
0
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
300
Bias index
Fribourg
2010
45
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2004)
46
Hindsight
bias
•
Memory‐based
processes
–  memory
impairment:
Presentation
of
the
correct
solution
impairs
access
to
original
judgment
–  source
confusion:
The
correct
solution
is
erroneously
„recalled“
as
the
original
judgment
•
Judgment
processes
–  reconstruction
bias:
Reconstuction/memory
search
is
biased
by
the
correct
solution
(cf.
anchoring)
•
Modell‐based
separation
of
these
processes
–  HB13
model
(Erdfelder
&
Buchner,
1998)
Fribourg
2010
47
Hindsight
bias
•
Multinomial
processing
tree
model:
Control
items
Fribourg
2010
(Erdfelder & Buchner, 1998)
48
Hindsight
bias
•
Multinomial
processing
tree
model:
Experimental
items
Fribourg
2010
(Erdfelder & Buchner, 1998)
49
Hindsight
bias
•
Model
equations
Fribourg
2010
(Erdfelder & Buchner, 1998)
50
Hindsight
bias
•
SARA
(Selective
Activation
and
Reconstructive
Anchoring)
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl et al., 2003)
51
Hindsight
bias
•
SARA
(Selective
Activation
and
Reconstructive
Anchoring)
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl et al., 2003)
52
Hindsight
bias
•
SARA
(Selective
Activation
and
Reconstructive
Anchoring)
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl et al., 2003)
53
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, Stahlberg, & Frey, 1999)
54
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl & Hell, 1996)
55
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl & Hell, 1996)
56
Hindsight
bias
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 1999)
57
Hindsight
bias
•
High/low
anchor
design
and
source
manipulation
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2000)
58
Hindsight
bias
•
High/low
anchor
design
and
source
manipulation
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2000)
59
Hindsight
bias
•
High/low
anchor
design
and
plausibility
manipulation
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2000)
60
Hindsight
bias
•
High/low
anchor
design
and
plausibility
manipulation
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, 2000)
61
Hindsight
bias
•
High/low
anchor
design
and
plausibility
manipulation
Fribourg
2010
(Hardt & Pohl, 2003)
62
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
•
Study
1:
Young
children
vs.
adults
–  New
method:
Visual
degradation
of
common
objects
•  Task:
At
which
step
can
you
(or
could
a
peer)
identify
the
object?
•  Design:
Baseline
(self)
vs.
Hindsight
(other)
condition
Results:
Children
tend
to
show
larger
bias
than
adults
Fribourg
2010
(Bernstein et al., 2004)
63
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
•
Study
2:
Older
children
vs.
adults
–  Material:
Almanac
trivia
questions
Results
(shift
measure):
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, Bayen, & Martin, in press)
64
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
Results
(multinomial
modelling)
–  3rd
graders
showed
largest
recollection
bias
(rc‐re)
–  3rd
graders
showed
largest
reconstruction
bias
–  3rd
graders
showed
most
adoptions
of
correct
judgment
(CJ)
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, Bayen, & Martin, in press)
65
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
•
Study
3:
Lifespan
development
of
hindsight
bias
Results:
Difficulty
of
material
–  numbers
of
first
judgments
correct
•  on
the
mean
1.7
out
of
48
judgments
correct
•  no
age
difference
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, Auer, Bayen, & Martin, in prep.)
66
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
Results:
Percentage
of
correct
recollections
–  main
effect
of
age
group
and
experimental/control
condition
–  significant
interaction
Interaction Bar Plot for Nkorrekt
Effect: Gruppe
Error Bars: 95% Confidence Interval
12
9
8
7
8
6
Cell Mean
Cell Mean
10
6
5
4
3
4
2
2
0
Interaction Bar Plot for Nkorrekt
Effect: Bedingung
Error Bars: 95% Confidence Interval
1
0
Klasse3
Klasse6
Studis
Oldies
unmittelbar
Cell
Fribourg
2010
(Pohl, Auer, Bayen, & Martin, in prep.)
simultan
Cell
control
67
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
Results:
Source
confusions
–  main
effect
of
age
group
and
experimental/control
condition
–  significant
interaction
Interaction Bar Plot for NSourceConf
Effect: Bedingung * Gruppe
Error Bars: 95% Confidence Interval
1,4
Klasse3
1,2
Klasse6
Studis
Cell Mean
1
Oldies
,8
,6
,4
,2
0
Fribourg
2010
unmittelbar
simultan
Cell
control
(Pohl, Auer, Bayen, & Martin, in prep.)
68
Age
effects
in
hindsight
bias
•
Results:
Shift
of
recalled
judgments
(hindsight
bias)
–  hindsight
bias
in
all
age
groups
–  main
effects
of
age
group
and
experimental/control
condition
–  interaction
nearly
significant
(p
=
.08)
,3
,35
,25
,3
Interaction Bar Plot for ∆z
Effect: Bedingung
Error Bars: 95% Confidence Interval
,25
,2
Cell Mean
Cell Mean
Interaction Bar Plot for ∆z
Effect: Gruppe
Error Bars: 95% Confidence Interval
,15
,2
,15
,1
,1
,05
0
,05
Klasse3
Klasse6
Studis
Cell
Fribourg
2010
Oldies
0
unmittelbar
(Pohl, Auer, Bayen, & Martin, in prep.)
simultan
Cell
control
69
Conclusions
Fribourg
2010
70
The
domain
of
suggestionality
Suggestive
techniques
General and individual
suggestibility
Person B
accepts x
Person A
suggests x
Suggestive situation
Suggestive functions
Fribourg
2010
(Gheorghiu, 2000)
71
The
domain
of
suggestionality
•
Suggestive
techniques
–  state
of
uncertainty
•  all
cognitive
illusions
[!]
–  inadequate
representation
•  conjunction
fallacy,
base‐rate
neglect,
deductive
reasoning
–  violation
of
general
rules
•  conjunction
fallacy,
anchoring,
Moses
illusion,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
implanting
–  confusions
•  Moses
illusion,
associative
memory
illusion
–  repetition
•  validity
effect,
mere‐exposure
effect
Fribourg
2010
72
The
domain
of
suggestionality
•
General
suggestibility
–  demand
characteristics
•  base‐rate
neglect,
confirmation
bias,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
implanting
–  knowledge
updating/coherence
(“adaptive”
learning)
•  anchoring,
validity
effect,
associative
memory
illusion,
labelling,
misinformation
effect,
hindsight
bias
–  efficient
processing
(heuristics)
•  anchoring,
base‐rate
neglect,
confirmation
bias
–  fluency/familiarity
•  validity
effect,
mere‐exposure
effect,
Moses
illusion
–  self‐serving
motives/coping
Fribourg
2010
73
Self‐serving
motives/coping
Fribourg
2010
(Greenwald, 1980)
74
Self‐serving
motives/coping
Identity
Fribourg
2010
(Kotre, 1998)
75
Summary
•
•
Explanations
of
cognitive
illusions
–  not
all
fully
understood
–  often
several,
competing
explanations
–  possibly
multiple
causes
Influences
of
language
–  as
medium
of
…
•  problem
representation
•  instruction
•  memory
representation
–  on
cognitive
processes
in
…
•  judgment
•  thinking
•  memory
Fribourg
2010
76
Thank
you
for
your
attention!
pohl@psychologie.uni‐mannheim.de
Fribourg
2010
77